African leaders and the geography of China's foreign assistance
Apr 23, 2019
Axel Dreher, Andreas Fuchs, Roland Hodler, Bradley C. Parks, Paul A. Raschky, Michael J. Tierney
Journal of Development Economics
Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Hodler, R., Parks, B. C., Raschky, P. A., & Tierney, M.J. (2019). African Leaders and the Geography of China's Foreign Assistance. Journal of Development Economics, 140.
Note: A version of this article was previously published as an AidData Working Paper.
We investigate whether foreign aid from China is prone to political capture in aid-receiving countries. Specifically, we examine whether more Chinese aid is allocated to the birth regions of political leaders, controlling for indicators of need and various fixed effects. We collect data on 117 African leaders' birthplaces and geocode 1650 Chinese development projects across 2969 physical locations in Africa from 2000 to 2012. Our econometric results show that political leaders' birth regions receive substantially larger financial flows from China in the years when they hold power compared to what the same region receives at other times. We find evidence that these biases are a consequence of electoral competition: Chinese aid disproportionately benefits politically privileged regions in country-years when incumbents face upcoming elections and when electoral competitiveness is high. We observe no such pattern of favoritism in the spatial distribution of World Bank development projects.
Professor of Economics and Chair of International and Development Politics at Heidelberg University
Geocoded China Data
AidData's Chinese Official Finance to Africa Dataset, 2000-2012, Version 1.1.1
This is a sub-nationally georeferenced dataset of Chinese official finance activities that spans 50 African countries over the 2000-2012 period. It includes 1,952 Chinese development finance projects across 3,545 physical locations.
Related Blog Posts
Diving into the Details: What “Aid on Demand” Says and Doesn’t Say About China in Africa
We're delighted to see that the paper provoked a fair amount of media coverage and debate among scholars. However, a lack of familiarity with the data, methods, and findings has led to inaccurate reporting and confusion. We’d like to briefly clarify several matters of fact.